At 13:45 13/08/97 +0800, Manager  - ICENet wrote:
>Could some one please point me in the right direction to the LAtest copy of
>the draft and any associated links PLEASE.....
>
>Many thanks in anticipation ...
>
>
>Cheers, BK.
>

Below is a repost on the submission that has gone to the ADNA board for
discussion at the ADNA meeting next Monday:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the process of trying to define the selection criteria for new DNAs and
2LDs, the following issues were raised and proved to be largely
unresolvable using the mailing list forum. These have to be decided by the
ADNA board before a final version of the criteria can be reached.

Below I have set out the issues and and the arguments for and against them.
Note that the arguments are not certified to be true, they are just
opinions that were expressed in the debate.

At the bottom of this document are attached the selection criteria as they
currently stand awaiting resolution of the issues.

1. Issues to be resolved

1.1 Scope of domains to be covered: 1 or more of:

1.1.1 .com.au

 everyone accepts that this should be included

1.1.2 other existing 2LDs considered commercial (eg. .net.au)

1.1.2.1 pro

á Makes sense that if ADNA is initally focused on commercial domans then it
should cover all commercial domains. If the object of the excercise is to
ensure fair competition then this may be jeapordised by a competitor not
restricted by ADNA policies

1.1.2.2 con

á Requires cooperation of current holders of existing 2LDs

1.1.3 new 2LDs created for commercial use

1.1.3.1 pro

á This allows for the increases in diversity of available domain names
which was one of the aims of ADNA

1.1.3.2 con

á It simplifies matters if we donât try and add new 2LDs just work with
.com.au

á Would appease the ADNA objectors to a certain extent if ADNA did not
create new 2LDs

á Once a 2LD is created it can never be removed

1.1.4 other new non-commercial 2LDs

everyone accepts that these should not happen at this stage (if ever)

1.2 Should all DNAs administer all 2LDs?

1.2.1 pro

á Makes life simpler as donât have to deal with situation where all DNAs
for a particular 2LD drop out

á As all the initial 2LDs will be commerically oriented the clients for
these will be the same group, thus it makes sense that DNAs would be
inclined to offer all the 2LD options

1.2.2 con

á Certain potential new 2LDs like .tm.au might require special skills or
access to certain information that not all DNAs could satisfy, hence there
should be provision for specialist DNAs

1.3 Should criteria be "deterministic"

1.3.1 pro

á Ideally the  applicant should know at the time of application whether
they will be approved based on the fact that they know they satisfy all the
criteria

á Avoids the ADNA board having to make subjective decisions which are open
to debate and critisicm

1.3.2 con

á To achieve this need to include specific figures in criteria such as
"must have 5 full time employees, must have 64K permanent link". As soon as
such a statement is made however there is always great debate about what
the exact figure should be to the point where a resolution is almost
impossible

á Some suggested criteria should be more flexible to account for unforseen
circumstances such as less staff necessary than first thought, eg. "must
have adequate staff"

1.4 Should criteria be very strict

1.4.1 pro

á To avoid the chronic phenomenon of ISP types biting off more than they
can chew

á The DNA should be of good character to avoid bringing the system into
disrepute

á The DNA should be stable and well established to avoid it having to drop
out of the system and leaving its customers hanging

1.4.2 con

á As the actual DNS systems will be maintained independantly of  the DNAs
it is not such a disaster if they go broke - unless of course they are the
sole DNA for a 2LD

1.5 Should ADNA create only a limited number of 2LDs

1.5.1 pro

á This would be the cautious approach to test the new system as once a 2LD
is brought into existence it will be with us forever

á Each new 2LD adds complexity to the DNA software systems (?)

1.5.2 con

á The ADNA board should let just about any application for a new 2LD
through because the market can then decide which ones are necessary rather
than the ADNA board having to assess this

á If a 2LD is not very popular it wonât have much of an impact on anything
- the .csiro.au has only hundreds of 3LDs and the DND systems is coping
with this fine

1.6 Structure of documents

Mark Hughes proposed that the present arrangements of documents (a separate
code of conduct, terms and conditions and selection criteria) is the wrong
approach. He suggested that they should be combined with one document
containing all these components for each 2LD instead. This approach also
needs discussion.

2. Selection criteria for DNAs

Minimum requirements for DNA status:

1. Must be an incorporated body,
[everyone seems to agree on this]

2. Must be able to demonstrate availability of AU$200,000 liquid capital,
[To cover any unforseen issues like extra staff, equipment, connectivity]

3. Applicants for DNA roles must pay an application fee as set from time to
time by ADNA.  The fee for 1997/1998 is $5,000 for organisations who are
not currently DNAs.  This amount, minus any administrative costs incurred
in processing the application, is refundable to unsuccessful DNA applicants.
[no objections to this so far]

4. Must have a permanent connection to the Internet,
[This used to be much more involved including descriptions of minimum
levels of connectivity, etc. but as the DNA wonât be hosting the DNS
servers it will only disadvantage them if their link is inadequate. If
customers canât get through they will go to another DNA]

5. Must be covered by at least $1,000,000 professional indemnity insurance,
[Seems OK with everybody]

6. DNA licences should be reviewed and renewed annually or more frequently
at the discretion of the ADNA board.

7. DNA must abide by the DNA Code of Conduct.
[Added this one - pretty obvious but may as well spell it out]


3. Selection criteria for new 2LDs

1. Nomination must come from DNA
[Some said anyone should be able to nominate but I think if no DNA will
support the nomination then it really canât be nominated.]

2. Name should be no less than 2 letters + .au
[Fairly inoffensive condition]

3. What is domain of new 2LD (eg. commercial enterprises for .com)
[Necessary part of application]

4. What restrictions will apply to applicants for domains (eg. has to be
significant part of registered business name for .com)
[Another requirement no one seems to have a problem with]

5. Justification for need for new 2LD
[Still the $64k question and not very well answered yet. How does the ADNA
board decide whether a new 2LD should be accepted or not?]

6. Must allow 60 day public notice period for comment before final approval
by board. In 60 day period objections to the new 2LD should be received and
considered by ADNA.
[Everyone seems happy with this too]

Regards

--
Kevin Dinn ____________________    o    _          _--_|\    ZIP P/L 
Business Manager              /____|___|_)________/______\_____________
www.zip.com.au                         | .        \_.--._/  Virtually
Phone: (Australia) 1300 655577 Fax: (02) 9247 5276      v  the best :-)
............... President - Australian Internet Alliance ..............